Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-12-10

accept Bacon as the real author of the text,
and the basis for this request is ''conject-
ural negatives and distorted facts" In
this bit of incisive expression Mr.. Barrett
is very happy; there have been applied to
Mr.. Donnelly's unsatisfactory assaults no
better descriptions. Before we can accept,
says Barrett, the idea that an unpretend-
ing man Ike Shakespeare could not dis
course as he did of classic themes, and SO
deal with the history of many nations, and
so analyze and read human nature it ought
to be demanded that proof be adduced that
only the scholar and antiquarian give us
such works. In fact in the domain of lit
erature, such as that to which the study of
Shakespeare leads US, simple learning and
technical attainments have never yet laid
US under any obligations whatever. "If
the author of the first great epic was uni
versity graduate, or man of place or
parts, we have no record of it."
The essayist cites numerous examples of
great genius and profound wisdom, which
received small recognition in its own day,
and sprang from lowly conditions, and he
asks twas it a scholar and noble, who
from carts tail, before a multitude
Of listeners, dramatized the belief of a
nation, and by his own creative genius
gave vitality and clearness to the story of
Prometheus~ The creator of the Greek
ianguage-a minnesinger, the founder
of the Greek drama, are cited as instances
OF genius in lowly and unambitious
places ; the Greek tragedies were written
by men who were actors or managers, and
no contemporary note of any lost work dis
proves the fact The works of the French
dramatists are those Moliere created.
Scarcely a reputation of the contempo-
raries of Shakespeare can escape disrepute
under the theory advanced by Donnelly
of similarity of expression. Chaucer and
Spenser were drawn upon by Marlowe
and Jourm, as well as the woolen-draper' S
son. That Shakespeare has no place in
Elizabethan chronicles, Mr.. Barrett
| thinks proves nothing more than that the
contemporary writers of any era are not
| quick to recognize the higher genius of a
fellow worker.
Yet Mr.. Barrett thinks it susceptible of
proof that Shakespeare held the secure
place among the non-theater goers of his
time which he now holds. AS to publica-
ton, his works were published only over
the lights of the stage. His calling was
degraded in the eyes of many of the liter
airy classes, and it would therefore be Curl
Gus to find his claims allowed by such as
Sir Thomas Browne or Robert Greene.
But contemporary mention of him is
abundant, and the only way the Baconians
can reply to it is to ignore or cast dis
| credit upon it. Their final stand is made
| upon the Sonnets," because there is some
resemblance between Bacon's expression
and Shakespeare's. But the whole theory
proceeds upon the assumption that Bacon
was ashamed to own his work allowed
his masterpieces to pass in his time I'M
claimed, and when the reputed
author died, deliberately consented
to their publication accredited to
another. Barrett recalls Macaulay's an
swer, that if Bacon in prosperity might
have disowned the works, there came a
time, in his disgrace and poverty, when
his claim to plays already the delight of
the nation, would have again raised him
in poptlar favor and regained him much
of the glory he had lost. But he died
and made no sign. Mr.. Barrett holds that
as it is true poets are born and not made
so 1t is true that dramatists are born and
grow. Shakespeare was one of the royal
poets whose lines will remain imperish-
able in our literature. He was born of
England, and drank in with his earliest
inspiration all the influences of that beau
tiful land. They quickened his feryid I'M
agination, and gave calm and peace
to the tempest of his fiery soul. In his
time an effete language was giving way
before living tongue. A new world of
enterprise was opening, and genius in art
and science was under new inspiration
The stage was the one open and lucrative
road to fame and wealth for the poet and
playwright, and this it was led Shakes
peare in that direction.
The plays to which his genius gave
birth passed out of his hands by contract
according to the custom of the day, and
hence he had no such property to devise, a
fact Mr.. Donnelly neglects to take into ac-
count. Bacon devised his papers to Con-
stable, but made no mention of such pre-
cious manuscripts as it is now sought to
credit to his authorship. The sonnets and
many of the plays were republished after
the death Of Shakespeare, with his name
unusually prominent, but Bacon was silent
in the face OF this alleged i'm
posture" though he had so much of
FAVOR 10 expect II ne proved their
paternity to be in him. If Shakes
peare was an impostor, those about him
were knaves and fools. Southampton's
friendship for Shakespeare is denied, and
it is attempted to unite Bacon and South
ampten in friendly relations, that the in
famous conduct of Bacon toward Essex,
Southampton's friend and relative, makes
unthinkable. Finally, Mr.. Barrett argues
that there is no ingenuity of reasoning that
associates the life and work of Bacon with
the plays that cannot be more sensibly
used in favor of the reputed author. The
very defects of Shakespeare's verse would
dishonor the collegian, and his many
errors, false quantities, anachronisms of
all kinds, would disgrace a merely
well-read or educated man. On the ground
of goodness and sobriety, the testimony is
in favor Of Shakespeare, for he holds
that the worlds history gives us record
of no such infamous life as that of Bacon,
when his gifts and surroundings are taken
into account.